If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

Dan,

Dan Barclay wrote:

Some minor points.
>> VB6, and all its predecessors, were so tied in to Windows that any
>> major change to Windows broke the language.
>
> You have *got* to be kidding!

Bugger I missed that one. I wonder what major changes he was referring
to. My one and only VB3 Database program developed on a Win 3.1
machine runs very happily under 95, NT4 and XP. 98 and Me it wasn't
tried on as the wife gave up the librabry - NT3 and XP because someone
else took it up again.My non Database applications worked happily on
everything from 3.1 and upwards.

Perhaps he may be referring to use of the Win API- I could imagine
that causing some grief.
>> Look at VB4-16 to VB4-32. Out with
>> the VBX, in with the OCX.
>
> Absolutely wrong, with regard to most business code. What does VBX
or
> OCX have to do with Basic code? Nothing. Vendors that cared
created
> OCX's that worked the same way their VBX's worked such that zero
> effort was required in VB to upgrade.
>
> Most code is in raw Basic language syntax, using the various
component
> models for wrappers only. Moving from DOS to Win16, then Win16 to
> Win32 was accomplished fairly easily. Code itself could be written
in
> the earlier version in a way that let it work in the later version.

Then production of a .NET control is also quite simple from the
exisiting code for the OCX. Or is this extrapoloation not valid? If it
was valid then why doesn't .NET read in my pure VB control and convert
it? Instead this COM wrapper comes in bloating my .exe and now I need
..NET and VB6 on the same platform if I want to continue to support and
develop the ActiveX control. I really though that this would be
something "simple" to impliment but I suppose going into .NET in depth
would probably explain why it was not possible - but I dont want to go
under the hood - I want to use it as is.
>> WHICH GETS ME TO MY POINT:
>> VB.NET is a redesign, made to fit into the new world - in a way
that
>> VB6 cannot.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
>> When will that be? 5 years? 10 years? Who knows? But I do
>> believe that as long as .NET exists, VB.NET will be supported,
>> enhanced, and backward compatible.
>
> Oooowww... this is so funny it hurts! LOL!

Yes. I made the mistake in going VB route thinking it would be there
for eons to come. Thats probably the main reason why I'm reluctant on
..NET - knowing I have to scrap 95% of it and start all over again - do
"you" really want to do that. It appears that there are quite a few
folks here that would hive that an unequivocal yes

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
>
> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
> > Its called API
>
> Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as you
> would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
>
> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
> runner.Start()
>
> In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you
can
> even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need to
> use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
> continuing ****...
>
> Tom Shelton
>
>

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:l6d0pus56dpp3v7ii34jcm6m1lkkv0ihch@4ax.com:
> 'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
> worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
> apps in the process...
>
> MM
>

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:11:47 -0600, "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com>
wrote:
>In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you can
>even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need to
>use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
>continuing ****...

'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
apps in the process...

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

It's still possible to go home, put your oven gloves on and get baking if
you fancy a muffin with your cup of coffee when you're out shopping on a
Saturday afternoon. Personally I prefer to go and get one from a coffee
shop that avoid me having to do all the ground-work myself though.

"Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote:
>Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
>"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
>>
>> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
>> > Its called API
>>
>> Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as
you
>> would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
>>
>> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
>> runner.Start()
>>
>> In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure you
>can
>> even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need
to
>> use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
>> continuing ****...
>>
>> Tom Shelton
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

'Course, this ignores fact that some VB devs "got by" for years without
worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two shagnasty, unmaintainable
apps in the process...

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>'Course, this ignores fact that VB devs "got by" for years without
>worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two useful
>apps in the process...

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

On 24 Sep 2002 03:31:51 -0700, "Mark Powell" <mark@nospam.com> wrote:
>'Course, this ignores fact that some VB devs "got by" for years without
>worrying about threads, even managing to produce one or two shagnasty, unmaintainable
>apps in the process...

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

Here's a point - too bad VB didn't have threading in the past because now
that VB.NET supports threading the VB devs I work with found a new toy.

The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as someone
stated earlier:

Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
runner.Start()

Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old C++
dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation, priortization,
TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on. Oh and fix why my GUI doesn't
respond now since I have started that thread.

Here's a tip from grandpa -- if you don't know how to do threading stay away
from it. As MM said earlier you guys have done without for so long right?
And I really hate to agree with him.

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

Ted wrote:
> The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as
> someone stated earlier:
>
> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
> runner.Start()

It is.
> Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old
> C++ dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation,
> priortization, TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on.

Which you learned from a book (or asked a friend or maybe in a class) a
while back right?.

Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a question
too.

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

::claps:: well ya
"Mark Powell" <mark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3d903ebb$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> It's still possible to go home, put your oven gloves on and get baking if
> you fancy a muffin with your cup of coffee when you're out shopping on a
> Saturday afternoon. Personally I prefer to go and get one from a coffee
> shop that avoid me having to do all the ground-work myself though.
>
>
> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote:
> >Yes I have done it, its more detailed but still possible non the less.
> >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
news:3d8fdff9@10.1.10.29...
> >>
> >> "Jay King" <nemopsj@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:3d8ec5b3$1@10.1.10.29...
> >> > Its called API
> >>
> >> Have you actually tried to use the API for this? It isn't as easy as
> you
> >> would seem to state here. In VB.NET is a simple matter of:
> >>
> >> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
> >> runner.Start()
> >>
> >> In VB6, you need to do all kinds of nasty lowlevel work to make sure
you
> >can
> >> even start the thread... VB.NET is much better to work with if you need
> to
> >> use threads... Believe me, this comes from a very recent, bitter, and
> >> continuing ****...
> >>
> >> Tom Shelton
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Just because any programming problem can be solved without threads
doesn't mean they're worthless. Just like just because you can survive
without prawns/shrimp, that doesn't mean they should be removed from the
table, right?

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

I am sorry. To start a thread is very easy, you are correct. To write a
multithreaded application, well once again you are WRONG!!! Threading seems
to be something that VB couldn't make easy enough for VB developers. I think
it was stated earlier in this thread how hard it was to do threading in VB
in the past.
>
>> Unfortunately it's not that easy. Now they are tracking down us old
>> C++ dinosaurs to explain deadlock, race conditions, starvation,
>> priortization, TLS, synchronization, and the list goes on.
>
>Which you learned from a book (or asked a friend or maybe in a class) a
>while back right?.
>

Oh then I'll just throw some books their way. Unfortunately there are no
books that were written with VB and threading in mind, that I know of. Unfortunately
Kunle, I didn't learn from a book or even a class and I **** sure know I
didn't learn it from a VB developer. I have had to learn through trial and
error because quite frankly there are no good books on multithreading( the
right way ) on the market.

>Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a question
>too.
Read the above article and we all can see just how easy it is. Meanwhile
I will spending the next few hours of my day fixing some VB.NET code that
began with:

Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
runner.Start()

and ended up wi........................................................................................ .......................................................................................... .............................................

Oh I am sorry we had a race condition that caused that line to go berzerk.

Once again, thanks Kunle for your insight. I will go ahead now and update
my resume to state that I now know multithreading in VB.NET.

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

"Ted" <ttt@ttt.net> wrote in message news:3d91ba67$1@10.1.10.29...

[snip]
> >Newsflash: Just about anybody including VB devs can read and ask a
question
> >too.
> Read the above article and we all can see just how easy it is. Meanwhile
> I will spending the next few hours of my day fixing some VB.NET code that
> began with:
>
> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
> runner.Start()

Ted just so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't need to be concerned
about thread issues - I assumed that was a given. The point was simply that
because of the built in support for threading in VB.NET, you have less
low-level work to do to make it work right. That's all. Have you seen the
code necessary to make a thread work in VB6? It is actually easier in
VB5...

Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

>Ted just so you know, I wasn't saying that you didn't need to be concerned
>about thread issues - I assumed that was a given.

I am sorry about the lashing out. I understood what you were saying and
having talked with the VB guys here they have fully explained why they haven't
done threading in the past due to what it took to accomplish it in VB6.
Unfortunately, not only have they not done threading in VB, most have never
done threading in any language short of the little console apps on MSDN.

The point was simply that
>because of the built in support for threading in VB.NET, you have less
>low-level work to do to make it work right. That's all.

Agreed. But for those who come back with comments like this:
>> The truth is the VB devs (I work with ) think it is as simple as
>> someone stated earlier:
>>
>> Dim runner As New Thread(AddressOf MyThreadProc)
>> runner.Start()
> It is.

Well, for those who have done threading in a large project(or any project)
know that "It's not".

Have you seen the
>code necessary to make a thread work in VB6? It is actually easier in
>VB5...

Unfortunately I have and it didn't look pretty. I understand that doing
the plumbing to threading is easier with .NET as with any library, but having
worked with libraries like Threads++, no matter how great the library and
what it takes away you still have to know the issues involved with doing
threaded work.